The success of
so-called "gay rights" is an amazing triumph of clever
deception over simplelogic.
When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely
fall for arguments thatjust
don't hold up under scrutiny. "Gay" sympathizers aren't
necessarily more gullible than otherpeople,
they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without
first examining theunderlying
premises.

He who defines the terms controls the
debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issuethe
terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists
of the "gay"movement.

Sophistry, it must be noted, is the
ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. Thekey to overcoming sophistry is to simplify
and clarify what the sophists have intentionally madecomplex
and vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts
being used in thearguments.
One quickly discovers that most arguments advocating "gay rights"
depend uponhidden false assumptions
and deliberately ambiguous terms. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Among the most common terms and concepts
in the "gay rights" debate are: homosexuality,sexual
orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness,
discrimination,homophobia and
tolerance. These words and phrases are used by "gay" sophists
to frame thequestion of homosexuality
as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals
tothe extent that they cast
themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even
withinthis context, "gay"
arguments are easily refuted.

What is Homosexuality?

Some people might be tempted to skip past this section because they
think they understand thisterm.
That is the first mistake made by every victim of "gay"
sophistry. Failure to clarify theessential
terms at the beginning allows one to be trapped by his or her own
assumptions. It's likesigning
a contract to buy a used car without clearly identifying the car.

The definition of homosexuality is not as settled as one might think.Until 1986, homosexuality was universally
defined as same-gender sexual conduct. Byextension,
a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage
in suchconduct. The "gay"
movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term"homosexuality" had meaning
only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.

After 1986, the "gay" movement began to redefine homosexuality
as a normal and immutablecondition
equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent
of conduct.Under the new definition,
"straights" can choose same-gender sexual relations and
"gays" canchoose
opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true "sexual
orientation."

Why the change in strategy?

1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case
of Bowers v. Hardwick,upheld
the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The "gay"
movement had arguedthat homosexual
sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right
nodifferent than marital sexual
relations. The court firmly rejected that argument.

The constitutional
right of states to regulate homosexual conduct remains the law of
the land.

Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental
right, the "gay"movement
turned to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional
protection:minority status
as a "suspect class." The Supreme Court recognizes minority
status only forthose groups
which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless
to helpthemselves and 3) are
defined by immutable characteristics.

This is the secret
to understanding why the "gay" movement now denies that
homosexuality isbehavior-based
and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable.
It is notscience. It is a
legal and political strategy.

The problem is that they can't prove it.

There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person
is innately homosexual.One
cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is
"gay." We must dependentirely
upon a person's claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The
taint of political self-interest
alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy. Self-declared homosexuals
can't evenprove that they
really believe that their homosexuality is innate. Instead, they
argue thathomosexuality must
be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and
incur the resultingsocial
stigma. This argument is invalid, since many people choose lifestyles
that otherscondemn. Moreover,
there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle
is avoluntary preference.

On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape
is voluntary and thus everysexual
act involves a conscious choice. A person's inclination toward a
form of sexual conductmay
not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere
existence of desire doesnot
justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery
and pedophilia. Societyhas
the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if
it is difficult for them to do so.

In reality, the "gay" movement does not want a biological
cause to be found. If science were toidentify
a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the "race
for the cure." (And agreat
many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join
that race.)

Since the
"gay" movement can't prove it, the assertion that
homosexuals are "born that way"remains
nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for
abandoning long-standing,
experience-tested social policies. Remember, society doesn't have to
prove thathomosexuality is not
innate. "Gay" activists are the ones attempting to change
things and theburden of proof
is theirs.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is
not innate. There is a veryconsiderable
body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once
lived ashomosexuals. These
ex-"gays" have renounced their former lifestyles and many
have becomeheterosexual in
self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the
point of comfortwith their
own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. The "gay"
movement's challenge toformer
homosexuals to, in essence, prove they aren't still innately "gay"
is the height of absurditysince
homosexual immutability was never proven in the first place.

Why is the question of immutability so important? Because if homosexuality
is not innate, itmust be acquired.
And if it can be acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be
legitimizedto our children.
If there remains any shadow of doubt as to the cause of homosexuality,
we musterr on the side of
protecting our children. Indeed we must actively discourage them
fromviewing homosexuality
as safe and normal, when in fact it is demonstrably neither safe
nornormal. It bears noting
here that normalcy is functioning according to nature or design.Normalcy is not based on popular opinion.

In summary, the true definition of homosexuality is same-gender
sexual conduct. A homosexualis
a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in
or desire to participate in suchconduct.
This definition is both logical and intuitively sound.

For the sake of our children and the health of our society, we must
not accept the redefinition ofthese
terms. We must force the advocates of the "born that way"
argument to admit that theycan't
prove it, and that since they can't prove it, they must admit the
possibility thathomosexuality
may be acquired. We must never allow a discussion to proceed forward
if theimmutability of homosexuality
is assumed as a premise. We must challenge the premise andforce the logical concessions, without
allowing the subject to be changed.

Sexual Orientation

"Sexual orientation" is a highly ambiguous term loaded
with hidden false assumptions.

An "orientation" describes the perspective of a subject
toward an object. A sexual orientationtherefore
describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are
sexually attracted: ahomosexual
is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward
both sexes,a pedophile toward
children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc..

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual
orientations. The "gay"movement,
however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual,
homosexual,bisexual, and transgendered
(i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognizeother orientations -- pedophilia,
for example -- would draw attention to the importance ofdistinguishing between orientation
and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientationtheory
is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this
distinction.

This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include
sexual orientation.Government
and corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discriminationpolicies in order to protect freedom
of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexualorientation is nothing more than a
state of mind. Americans rightfully cherish the FirstAmendment
right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of such policies,
however, is tolegitimize and
protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For example,
undersuch policies a landlord
is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend
tocommit sodomy on the property
and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.

Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important?
Because sexual conducthas
serious public health consequences which society has both a right
and an obligation toregulate.
In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation,
properlydefined. Even a pedophile's
orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if
henever acts upon it.

Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations
by adding onesentence to existing
anti-discrimination laws: "This policy shall not be construed
to legitimize orprotect any
sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest."
The right to claim asexual
orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual
conduct.

Another purpose of
sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which
homosexuality andheterosexuality
hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality
andheterosexuality is very
important to "gay" arguments. For one thing it neutralizes
health and safetyarguments
against the legitimization of homosexuality.

For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads
disease. When remindedof this,
"gay" sympathizers say, "Heterosexuals do the same
things." This isn't a logical defenseof
homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don't make a right. However,
it is an argument fortreating
homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly
equivalent. But they arenot.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality
as merely sexualconduct between
people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth
about what itmeans to be human.
All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with
genitaldeformities) are born
with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are
eithermale or female. We have
sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that
arerooted in our procreative
heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female(or vise versa) is self-evidently
normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female orientation is self-evidently
abnormal and unnatural. For homosexuality to be equivalentto heterosexuality, it would need
to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.

In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct
among people who areinnately
and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically
(and to varyingdegrees morally)
equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other
forms ofdeviant behavior,
or behavior that deviates from the normal design-based function
of the humanbeing.

A second reason for espousing the demise of equivalency is that
it allows "gay" activists toexploit
the civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination,
in the civilrights context,
means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals
areassumed to be equal, then
it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexualsenjoy. "Gay" sophists have
coined the term "heterosexism" to describe favoritism
towardsheterosexuals. To grasp
the implications of heterosexism, simply think of it as "racism"
towardhomosexuals.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always
the first step in thehomosexual
takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-"gay"
assumptions. From theadoption
of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality
is immutable,equivalent to
heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard
to public healthconsiderations.
Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can
be consideredviolations of
the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest
of the homosexualpolitical
agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by the
premises.

The takeover
process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but
is predictable andeasily
recognized.

The takeover of local governments begins in the local media (where
there is never a shortage of"gay"
political activists) with a campaign to raise awareness of discrimination
against legitimateminorities.
A call then goes out to form a Human Relations Commission to study
the problemand develop community-based
solutions. The commission is then formed with quasi-governmental
authority. The anti-discrimination policy comes next, often without
mention ofsexual orientation.
That is usually added by amendment later. Opposition is usually
minimalbecause no one wants
to be perceived as being in favor of discrimination. This is not
a baselessfear. Pro-"gay"
activists in both the media and the government greet any opposition
with widely -publicized accusations
of racism and bigotry.

Invariably, one
duty of the commission is to gather, analyze and report statistics
ondiscrimination in the
community. (This is probably where the concept of "hate
crimes" originatedas a
"gay" political strategy).

The use of a reporting plan assures the favorable outcomes for homosexuals.
First, they gain ameasure
of legitimacy merely by being listed together with true civil rights
minorities (withouthaving
to justify their inclusion among those whose status is based on
morally neutral criteria suchas
skin color and ethnicity). Second, the very nature of the reporting
process virtually guaranteesan
increase of discriminatory incidents from one reporting period to
the next as people graduallybecome
aware of the system. This appearance of a growing problem bolsters
their demands foradditional
concessions to their agenda.

The takeover of a
corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually
in-the-closet)homosexual into
a hiring position. Other undisclosed "gays" are then hired
to fill strategicpositions in
the company. When the ability to control the process is assured,
some of the activistscome
"out-of-the-closet" and form a "Gay and Lesbian
Employees Association." That group thenintroduces
an amendment to the company anti-discrimination policy to include
"sexualorientation."

Democratically-run organizations (including political parties, labor
unions and churches) aretargeted
based upon their vulnerability to takeover by a unified bloc of
voting members. Massinfiltration
by activists precedes elections, after which time organizational
policy (and bylaws) canbe
controlled by the new activist leaders, who may or may not disclose
that they are "gay." I haveheard
it said that this was how the Metropolitan Community Church, an
entirely homosexual -controlled
"religious denomination" started, beginning with the takeover
of the original MCC,which
was reportedly a genuine but struggling Christian church. The so-called
"mainstream"Christian
denominations have been particularly targeted, not only because
many congregationshave seen
steeply declining membership in recent decades (i.e. fewer new "members"
are neededto gain a voting
majority), but because these denominations have vast property holdings
andendowment funds which can
be used for activist projects.

Every takeover is followed by consolidation of "gay" power
within the organization, starting withsome
form of "sensitivity training." Sensitivity training employs
proven psychological coerciontactics
(i.e. "brainwashing") to indoctrinate members of the organization
in pro-"gay" thinking.By
the very nature of the manipulative tactics used, few dare to openly
dissent. Those who do areduly
noted by the control group and if they are considered a real threat,
they are marginalized andmay
in time be forced out. Sensitivity training is usually mandatory
for all members of theorganization.

Once the control group has consolidated power, the organization
is plundered for its availableresources.
These include tangible resources such as money and property, but
also intangibles suchas advertising
and vendor contracts and even community goodwill. Charitable giving,
too, isexploited, as gifts
and grants are diverted away from previously-favored beneficiaries
like theBoy Scouts to "gay"-controlled
organizations. While some resources benefit the internal controlgroup (i.e. domestic partnership benefits
and employee perks), most are focused strategicallyoutside
of the organization to further the "gay" political agenda
in the community.

All the processes described above are made possible simply by the
acceptance of sexualorientation
as a theory of human sexuality.

In summary, sexual
orientation is a term that is used by "gay" activists to
deceive both policymakers and
the public about the nature of homosexuality. It frames the debate
abouthomosexuality in such a
way that the average person is tricked into accepting
"gay"presuppositions
without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to
oppose thehomosexuals'
political goals. Once the presuppositions have been accepted,
especially when theybecome
"law" in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to rest
of the "gay" agenda becomesmuch
more difficult.The only
effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of
sexual orientation andre-frame
the issues on a truthful foundation. Sexual orientation must be
exposed for what it is: anonsensical
theory about sexuality invented by "gay" political
strategists to serve their own selfishinterests
at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

Diversity

Diversity is a code word for the political doctrine of multi-culturalism.
By itself it means only"the
variety of things," but as used by the homosexual movement
"diversity" is a moral statementabout
the way society ought to be: a harmonious social pluralism in which
every culture ishonored for
its contribution to the whole. Thus feel-good emotionalism is harnessed
to obscuredeeply flawed reasoning.

Multi-culturalism, meaning the equality of cultures in a pluralistic
society, is a valid concept ifculture
is defined by morally neutral criteria. Society should pursue civic
equality based uponthings
like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices
are not morally neutral. Fewof
us would agree that the cultures of German nazism, Soviet communism,
and Taliban-ruledAfghanistan
are the equals of American culture. The "culture" of homosexuality
- a way of liferooted in the
practice of sodomy - is not equal to the inherited family-based
cultures of African -Americans,
Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.

The very inclusion of behavioral criteria in the definition of culture
invalidates the premise ofequality
in multi-culturalism.

This introduces the companion word to diversity: inclusiveness.
Churches and other institutionsthat
have fallen victim to "gay" sophistry openly congratulate
themselves for being inclusive.This
is the same error in a different form. In both cases there is a
failure to define the standard ofacceptance
by which people are welcomed into the circle of inclusion. With
no standard, there canbe no
objectivity in the process and decisions represent merely the arbitrary
will of the person orpersons
in charge.

In summary, the doctrine of multi-culturalism promotes the equality
of all diverse cultures in oursociety
under the code-word "diversity." The doctrine's validity
depends upon limiting thedefinition
of culture to morally neutral criteria. The inclusion of morally
significant sexualbehavior
in the definition robs multi-culturalism of validity by granting
legitimacy to immoralpractices.
Attempting to fix the problem by excluding some cultures because
of their practices(for example
cannibalism or slavery) contradicts the premise of equality of cultures.
Failure toarticulate a standard
by which to determine which cultures should be included compounds
theproblem by vesting arbitrary
authority in whomever holds power.

The effective response to a champion of "diversity" is
to focus on the definition ofmulticulturalism
and to demand to know the standard for inclusion.

Discrimination

Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated
in the civil rights movement. Innormal
usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used
in a civil rights contextit
means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is
the hidden qualifier in the term thatdistinguishes
appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society
there can be norational basis
for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity.
However, as withmulti-culturalism,
the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis
ofdiscrimination. Discrimination
against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many casesnecessary.

Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public
mind. The "gay"movement
has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding
itself to the list ofminorities
in anti-discrimination statutes.

In summary, discrimination has been useful to "gay" activists
because the public is deeplyconditioned
to associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice.
The solution isto add the
prefix "rational" or "irrational" to discrimination
whenever one uses the term. Atminimum
this tactic causes the hearer to consider the significance of the
prefix. It also sets thestage
for a discussion about the standard for determining what is rational
vs. irrationaldiscrimination.

Homophobia

This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay"
sophists. In a way, it shouldn'teven
be considered sophistry, since it lacks any hint of subtlety. In
contrast to the cleverness ofmost
other examples listed here, the illogic of homophobia is insultingly
blatant.

Originally,
homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's
fear of homosexualinclinations
in him or herself. "Gay" activists simply stole the term
and redefined it as "hateand/or
fear of homosexuals."

As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first
to define anyone who opposesthe
legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal
inclusion of allopponents
as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists
publicly associatethis label
with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When
they use the term they wantpeople
to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional
practice they includeevery
man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.
The way toexpose this fact
is to require the advocates of the "gay" position to state
the difference betweenhomophobia
and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal
that they acceptno opposition
to their agenda as legitimate.

Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental
illness. "Gay" activists takespecial
delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality
was listed as a mentaldisorder
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed
by the politicalmaneuvering
of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American
PsychiatricAssociation)

Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist,"
helping the "gay" movement tofurther
indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality
is equivalent toprejudice
against racial minorities.

Collectively, these
aspects of homophobia serve to intimidate opponents into silence.
When anyopposition to
homosexuality draws the accusation that one is a mentally-ill bigot
equivalent to aracist, few
people will dare to openly oppose it. Those who do will tend to be
defensive, offeringthe
disclaimer that they are not hateful (implicitly validating
hatefulness as the general rule).

The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because
it implicitly disparages anddeclares
illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions.
Adoption of theterm by government
constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause
of the FirstAmendment, which
prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.

In summary, homophobia is a nonsense word invented by "gay"
sophists as a rhetorical weaponagainst
its opponents. It lumps together all opponents as mentally-ill "gay
bashers" and in doingso
declares mainstream religious doctrines to be harmful and illegitimate.
The solution is to rejectthe
term homophobia itself as harmful and illegitimate. Its illegitimacy
can be exposed by makingpro-"gay"
advocates define the term and the distinction between homophobia
and non-homophobic opposition
to homosexuality.

Tolerance

Tolerance means putting up with someone or something you don't like
in order to serve thegreater
good of preserving civility. Tolerance is therefore an essential
virtue in a diverse society.In
the "gay" lexicon, however, tolerance means unconditional
acceptance of homosexuality.

Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant,
even those who treat self-defined
"gays" with the utmost courtesy and respect.

Abuse of language
is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good
example. Forevery person that
gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered
intolerant, there isanother
whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing
to be consideredintolerant.
The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it
appears necessary tobe
intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion. This
fosters a climate in whichintolerance
against legitimate minorities can be more easily justified. As the
"gays" have proved,many
people just don't think clearly enough to understand why intolerance
of race and intoleranceof
perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as
easily as it serves the "gays."

To reaffirm the true meaning of tolerance in the face of "gay"
sophistry, point out that tolerance isrelative.
Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero
tolerance but mostfall somewhere
in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance
for freedom ofspeech (i.e.
the right to say "I'm gay") but low tolerance for harmful
behavior (i.e. sodomy). Thetolerance
a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that
it will produce.

Conclusion

The heart of "gay" sophistry is the redefinition of homosexuality
as a state-of-being and not aform
of sexual behavior. This allows the "gay" movement to
define homosexuals as a civil rightsminority
comparable to African-Americans and other groups whose minority
status is based ontruly immutable
characteristics. In turn, this allows the "gay" movement
to inherit and exploit allof
the legal, political and social gains of the civil rights movement
for its own ends.

Sexual orientation theory is the vehicle for "selling"
the idea of homosexuality as normal andimmutable.
It creates a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology.
Only bymaking the design and
function of the human body irrelevant can "gay" strategists
avoidotherwise self-evident
truths about homosexuality.

All of the terms examined in this article, as applied to homosexuals,
depend for their validity uponthe
theory of sexual orientation, which in turn depends upon the redefinition
of homosexuality.

In the end, this battle is won by affirming the obvious. The truth
about homosexuality is self-evident. Self-evident truths are not
taught, they are revealed. Helping people overcome "gay"sophistry does not require teaching
them new facts and figures or raising their level of intellectualsophistication. On the contrary, it
requires a clearing away of the misinformation that obscuresthe simple reality of things.

Indeed, if you find yourself dependent on studies and statistics
to persuade someone of thewrongness
of homosexuality and that it should not be legitimized in society,
you have already lostthe debate.
Consider: a person who remains un-persuaded by a reminder of the
obvious truth hasrevealed
himself to be an intellectual reprobate for whom facts are ultimately
meaningless. Yet ifyou, by
retreating to secondary evidence, grant that obvious truth is insufficient
to prove yourcase, you voluntarily
invite a debate context which favors those who are willing to cheat
and lie towin.

Defeating "gay" arguments, therefore, depends upon asserting
the plain truth about homosexualityfrom
the start. If you fail to challenge the presuppositions of the "gay"
position, you will foreverbe
at a disadvantage in opposing the many goals of the "gay"
agenda. Stand firmly on the truththat
homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of
social disapproval becauseit
spreads disease and dysfunction. You will be aggressively attacked
for this position, becauseyour
opponents know that it is the only position from which you can successfully
defeat all oftheir arguments.
You will take less heat for seeking some point of compromise, but
you will tradeaway most of
your moral and persuasive authority in the process.

If you decline to stand firm on your pro-family presuppositions,
the insights provided in thisbooklet
will not be of much value to you. But if you do, they will serve
as potent weapons againstevery
form of "gay" sophistry and your courageous stand for
truth will be vindicated.

First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation
theory,homosexual immutability
or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality isassumed (which is just about any discussion
you will ever have on this issue).

"Gay" Advocate: "Can't you see that denying gays
the right to marry is discrimination. Whyshouldn't
they have the same basic rights as heterosexuals?"

You: "I'm a little confused by your argument. Are you saying
that you think homosexuality isequivalent
to heterosexuality?"

Second. Always make
the advocates of the "gay" position define the critical
terms.

"Gay" Advocate: "Of course they are equivalent. One
person is no better than another justbecause
of whom they happen to love."

You: "I still
don't get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality?
It's more thanlove isn't
it?"

Third. Stay on track. Sophists will always change the subject to
avoid having to admiterror.
The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined.
Don't allow yourselfto be
baited into switching topics. Promise to address new topics after
your main questionhas been
answered. (Also, watch out for the "tag team" tactic in
which a third party willinterrupt
your discussion to help your opponent change the subject. Make these
partiesaddress your question.)

"Gay" Advocate: "Homosexuality is just your sexual
orientation. It's the way you're born. Somepeople
are straight. Some are gay. You don't think gay people should be
discriminated againstjust
because they have a different orientation, do you?"

You: "I'd like to answer that question after we talk about
what sexual orientation is, but I'm stillnot
clear on what you mean by homosexuality. How do you know that it's
just the way someoneis born?

Fourth. Don't allow
your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to disprove oneof his or her assumptions. The burden
of proof is on him or her.

"Gay" Advocate. "Everybody knows that. There are
lots of studies. Besides, who would chooseto
be gay when there is so much hatred and homophobia against them?"

You: "Lots of people make choices that other people hate. That
doesn't prove anything. And allthe
studies that I have seen have been inconclusive. Can you cite me
any study that absolutelyproves
that gays are born that way?"

Fifth. Always steer the discussion to sexual conduct.

"Gay"
Advocate: "They're out there. But Gay people don't have to
prove themselves to deservebasic
rights. You don't have to prove your heterosexuality to get your
rights do you?"

You: "Now we're back where we started on this question of whether
homosexuality is equivalentto
heterosexuality. You still haven't defined what homosexuality is
or what heterosexuality is.Isn't
it a question of behavior?"

Sixth. Keep the discussion on what can be objectively observed and
measured and awayfrom the
subjective. Don't be diverted into a discussion of abstractions.

"Gay" Advocate: "No, its not about behavior, its
about orientation. I already said that. You canbe
gay and celibate. Being gay is when the person you fall in love
with is the same sex as you.Being
straight is when you fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.
That's it."

You: "So where does sex come in. If orientation has nothing
to do with sexual behavior, whatstops
pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they
never get physical, whatdoes
it matter if they fall in love with a child?"

Seventh. Use affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in
the discussion.

"Gay" Advocate: "Yeah, but pedophilia is illegal."

You: "Right. The behavior is illegal, but not the thoughts
and feelings. That's why its importantto
be very clear on the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality
before we decide if they'reequal.
If we're only talking about thoughts and feelings, then perhaps
they are equal, but then soare
all the other orientations you can think of. If we compare them
by the types of behavior theyinvolve,
that's a different story.

Pedophile behavior is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual
behavior is still illegal inmany
states because it spreads disease and dysfunction."

Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in his or her logic.

"Gay" Advocate: "Well heterosexuals engage in the
same risky behaviors as homosexuals."

You: "So would you agree that disapproval of all harmful sexual
conduct is reasonable?"

Nine. Follow the flaw to its illogical conclusion.

"Gay" Advocate: "No, I don't think its anyone's business
what two people do in the privacy oftheir
own bedroom."

You: "Allow me to summarize what you're saying. Homosexuals
and heterosexuals are onlydifferent
as to the choice of their partner, one is same-sex, the other opposite
sex, but that they areequal
in that both engage in the same types of sexual conduct. You also
believe that society hasno
right to regulate sexual conduct even if it threatens the public
health, but you would make anexception
for pedophiles. Is that about right?"

Ten. Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated
the truth for thoselistening
in to your discussion, not by the willingness of your opponent to
change his or hermind.

"Gay" Advocate: "I'm not going to let you trap me
into some homophobic box. Your problem isthat
you're a bigot."

You: "Your problem is that you don't understand that homosexuality
is very different thanheterosexuality.
Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed
to function ascompatible opposite-sex
partners. Homosexuality could only be equivalent if it was rooted
in acomparable physiological
design. Instead, even when engaging in homosexual acts, a personremains inherently and immutably heterosexual
by nature. Sexual orientation is just a theoreticalmodel
that lets you pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind
and not an objectivephysical
reality.

"That's why marriage is closed to homosexuals. It is an institution
designed to protect andstrengthen
the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative heterosexual
design we allshare."

Analysis. The preceding hypothetical conversation is actually a
composite of many realdiscussions
between the author and various advocates of the "gay"
position. It accurately andhonestly
portrays the typical comments and attitudes of "gay" defenders.
What may be gleanedfrom this
exchange is that one can never truly come to a common understanding
with a "gay"sophist,
since he or she cares only about winning and not about the truth.
Yet there are manypeople who
merely parrot "gay" rhetoric and who are really victims
of sophistry, not sophiststhemselves.
These people are persuadable.

The only value in arguing with a true sophist is to hone your debate
skills. Usually, however, youwill
have an audience. In that case, take the opportunity to educate
your audience and don't bediscouraged
that your opponent refuses to see reason.

When all is said and done, the only real solution to the problems
created by "gay" sophistry is torestore
a truthful standard in every institution where the sophists now
hold sway. That means thatwe
who have learned how to defeat "gay" sophisty must actively
compete for influence in thoseinstitutions
and to persuade others who share our love for the truth to do the
same.

Scott Lively is
uniquely qualified to speak in the defense of the natural family andagainst homosexuality. A graduate
(magna cum laude) of Trinity Law School in SantaAna,
California, Scott Lively holds the degree of Juris Doctor, with
special emphasis inHuman
Rights, as well as a certificate in Human Rights from the
International Institute ofHuman
Rights in Strasbourg, France. Now a licensed attorney, Scott is
Founder andPresident of
Abiding Truth Ministries and Director of ATM's Pro-Family Law
Center.The Pro-Family Law
Center is the nation's only legal organization devoted exclusively
toopposing the homosexual
political agenda. In the summer of 2001, Scott became StateDirector
of the American Family Association of California.An
entertaining and highly informative speaker, Scott has been a
featured guest on morethan 600
radio and television programs including appearances on the Fox News'
Hannityand Colmes, the Today
Show, CNBC's The Real Story, Family News in Focus, and theAmerican
Family Association Radio Network. He has been a featured speaker fornumerous conferences and church and
community groups in the U.S., Europe and Africa.Scott
is the author of numerous books and articles on issues related to
the protection ofthe natural
family, including the recently published monograph Why and How to
Defeatthe "Gay"
Movement. His most recent full-length book, Seven Steps to
Recruit-ProofYour Child is a
favorite of parents' rights groups across the nation, and is used by
Focuson the Family in its
seminars on this issue.

Scott's
additional works include The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the
Nazi Party,co-authored with
Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams, which documents the homosexualroots of Nazism and the central role
of homosexuals in the Holocaust. Now in its fourthedition
and published in four languages, the official release of The Pink
Swastika wastimed to coincide
with Scott's speech to the National Association for the Research andTherapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) at
its annual convention in San Francisco, July 29,1995.
In 1997 Scott published The Poisoned Stream: "Gay"
Influence in Human History,Volume
One, Germany 1890 - 1945. The Poisoned Stream, Volume One is both a
sequelto The Pink Swastika and
the first in an anticipated multi-volume series.An
enthusiastic born-again Christian, Scott testifies in his
presentation of having been analchoholic
and drug addict from the age of 12 until his miraculous deliverance
duringprayer at age 28, and of
his subsequent transformation form transient to accomplishedChristian
leader.Scott is 44 years old
and is married to his wife Anne. Scott and Anne have two sons,Noah, 18, and Samuel, 16, whom they
school at home. They live in Citrus Heights,California.

Contact Scott
Lively via his website at www.abidingtruth.com
where you will alsofind many
helpful resources.